WORKMEN RASTRIYA COLLIERY MAZDOOR SANGH versus BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. & ANR.

Citation: [2016] 9 S.C.R. 736 · Decided: 03-10-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2016}9 S.C.R. 736 
-
,- : : , . -. 
A 
WORKMEN RASTRIYA COLLIERY MAZDOOR SANGH 
B 
. ' 
v . 
BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. & ANR. 
, (I.A No. 2 of2016) 
IN 
(Civil Appeal No. 13953 of2015) 
OCTOBER 03, 2016 
[T. S. THAKUR, CJI, A.M. KIIANWILKAR AND 
C 
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.] 
Industrial Disptttes Act, 1947 - s.JO(l)(d) -Award of 
Industrial Tribunal directing regularization of workmen - Modified 
by High Court, directing that preference be given to the workmen 
in questio11. when regular workmen are employed - No appeal filed 
D against judgment of High Court - Years later, the workmen in 
question initiated a second round of litigation - Held: Relief of 
reinstatement cannot be given to the workmen in question, since 
such relief was denied in the judgment of High Cottrt which was 
not challenged - Distinction from case of another set of workmen, 
E where the award passed by the Tribunal for reinstatement was 
modified by the High Court but the High Court judgment was set 
aside by Supreme Court in appeal and the award of Tribunal was 
~ 
restored- However, in order to render full, final and complete justice 
in the instant case, respondents directed to deposit an amount of 
Rs.2 /akhs as compensation lo each workman in question. 
F 
On a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the 
Tribunal had delivered an award in 1996 directing regularization of the 
workmen in.question. The High Court, however, modified the award in 
2004 directing that .as and when regular workmen are employed, 
preference be given to the workmen in question. No appeal was filed 
G againstthejudgment of High Court. In 2011, the workmen in question 
initiated a second round of litigation before the High Court in writ 
proceedings which were dismissed. Hence, the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
H 
736 
WORKMEN RASTRIYA COLLIERY MAZDOOR SANGH v. 
BHARATCOKING COAL LTD. & ANR. 
HELD: 1. The facts indicate that the Award of the Industrial 
Tribunal dated 9 September 1996 directed the management of 
BCCL to regularise the workmen, but without backwages. The 
Award was, however, modified by the High Court on 18 May 2004 
whereby the management was only required in case it intended 
to employ regular workmen, to give preference to the workmen 
in question. This order of the High Court was not challenged by 
the Union representing the workmen. Evidently, no challenge 
was raised to the modification of the Award by the High Court 
unlike another reference concerning a separate set of workmen. 
In their case, the Award of the Industrial Tribunal was modified 
by a Division Bench of the High Court in a Letters Patent Appeal. 
The judgment of the Division Bench was challenged before this 
Court by the Union as a result of which the Award of the Industrial 
Tribunal was restored and reinstatement was ordered without 
backwages. In the present case, however, the fact remains that 
the order of the High Court was never challenged. [Para 6)(740-
D-G) 
2. There is no occasion at present to grant them 
reinstatement in any event, such relief having been denied in the 
judgment of the High Court dated 18 May 2004 which was not 
challenged. However, the predicament of the workmen is real. 
Two sets of workmen in the same colliery under the same company 
have received unequal treatment. The present group of workmen 
had faced attrition in numbers and were left with no practical relief. 
This situation should be remedied, to tJ1e extent permissible in 
law, having regard to the above background. In order to render 
full, final and complete justice, an order for the payment of 
compensation iii final settlement of all the claims, dues and 
outstandings payable to the workmen in question would meet 
the ends of justice. The Respondents shall deposit an amount of 
Rs. Two lakhs each towards compensation payable to each one 
of the 14 workmen in question. [Paras 7, 8) [741-A-D] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: I. A. No. 2 of 2016 in 
Civil Appeal No. 13953 of2015. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.07.2012 of the High Court 
of Jharkhand at Ranchi in L. P.A. No. 203 of2012. 
S. K. Sinha, Adv. for the Appellant. 
737 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
738 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016) 9 S.C.R. 
Anupam Lal Das, Anirudh Singh, Sahil Monga, Advs. for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACIIUD, J. I. The Appellant, which is a 
registered trade union, espoused the cause of the_ workmen engag
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.